Expert perspective, insight and discussion

Media (36 posts)

Dealing with a diagnosis of cancer remains a very scary, emotionally charged experience. That experience is not helped by the addition of conflicting advice, especially advice based on opinion and not evidence. And once in a while, that's what happens when a celebrity is the source of the information, as has now occurred with Sandra Lee. But this time reporters are stepping up to address the issue on the record.

Many of you are familiar with the now widely available interview Ms. Lee gave with ABC's Good Morning America anchor Robin Roberts, herself a cancer survivor who has openly shared her journey with the public. Ms. Lee told the nation that she has breast cancer, that a lumpectomy had positive margins, and that her doctors recommended a double mastectomy since she was a "ticking time bomb" in her words.

What the nation also knows is that Ms. Lee at the age of 48 was critical of guidelines that-in her words-tell women to wait until they are 50 to get a screening mammogram. She also recommended that women of all ages, even in their 20s and 30s, call their health professional now and get a mammogram. In short, all women "need to know" whether or not they have breast cancer.

A diagnosis of breast cancer is traumatic. A positive mammogram that turns out not to be cancer--what doctors call a "false positive"--is also traumatic, especially if a women has to endure the uncertainty of follow-up tests including additional x-rays and biopsies, which are certainly uncomfortable at the least and disfiguring at the worst. Younger women have a greater number of false positive mammograms, in part because their breast tissue is more dense making the reading of a mammogram more difficult.

People are entitled to their opinions. But when personal thoughts turn into public pronouncements it can create a sense of fear and a sense of panic that may not be warranted. Often, listening to what the science tells us can help us confront some of that fear. In this case what the science tells us is that screening women in their 20s and 30s who are at average risk of breast cancer would cause a great deal of harm and not much benefit. More...

I'm not talking about the incredible information that has already been produced by researchers examining the human genome. Nor am I referring to the work that is going on in major cancer centers and elsewhere exploring how to better match patients with genomic analyses of their cancers, for example.

And I am not talking about the advances in targeted therapies associated with diagnostic tests that can help guide the treatment of patients with a variety of cancers including but not limited to lung and breast cancers as examples.

No, I am asking whether we are prepared to usher in the new era of medical practice where genomic analyses in one form or another will be a part of our everyday medical practice. It's not just about cancer, my friends. It will be coming to a primary care practice near you probably sooner than you realize -- but it is coming. More...

(This blog was originally posted on Medpage Today and is reprinted here with permission)

+++++++++++

Value.

A simple word with lots of meanings, all of which depend on the context of the moment. Value in healthcare -- especially in cancer care -- is certainly no exception. What is undeniable is that we are seeing an increasing clamor about value in cancer treatment. And one person's value is clearly another person's concern.

At the crux of the debate is the question of whether we will continue to see improvements in cancer care that are meaningful, and whether we will be able to support the very innovation that, in no small part, holds such great promise for the future of making cancer a chronic disease for many and even finding a cure for some.

Conference organizers brought together experts from around the country who are vitally concerned about the progress we are making, and must continue to make, in elevating personalized (or precision) medicine as a key part of advancing cancer research and cancer care. The agenda included a number of presentations about not only how to make personalized medicine more relevant to all of us, but also how to address the question of "value." More...

I had an interesting day this past week. Sadly, it left me wondering why the same "hope and hype" directed at cancer patients and their families decades ago when I started my oncology career was still alive and well today. But then, maybe I am the naïve one to think that anything should have really changed.

In the morning I found out that a story I had been interviewed for a story which appeared on the Kaiser Health News website. A discussion about proton beam therapy for cancer (PBT), it basically pointed out that insurers aren't necessarily paying for the treatment and that the information supporting its use is not as definitive as some would hope or claim.

Not long after, I was informed of an online discussion on Twitter (called a "tweet chat" at #protonbeam) being hosted by a major medical institution and a well-known weekly newsmagazine on the very topic of proton beam therapy, or PBT. What I watched unfold over the hour-long discussion was what I call a "scrum" of doctors and public relations people promoting proton beam therapy as the answer to many cancer treatment dilemmas with nary a word about the limitations of our knowledge or potential problems with the treatment. It was all about "we can do it, call us and we will tell you how good we are, and insurers won't pay us." Simply stated, the "conversation" seemed to be glancing by some of the inconvenient facts surrounding what has become another poster story for how we develop and promote new treatments in medicine, let alone cancer care. More...

This past week I had the privilege of participating in a meeting hosted by the President's Cancer Panel on the role of social media in improving cancer control and treatment. The goal was to give advice to the Panel on a planned series of meetings they will be convening to discuss the topic. It was the range and quality of the discussion that day that left me thinking about the broader topic of social media and how it could help improve cancer control going forward. More...

This meeting is a whirlwind of activity and information, far too much for any one person to absorb and process. You can be focused on one topic, you can be general, and you can hear new cutting edge research or be educated on topics of general interest in cancer. You can go to the exhibit hall and be overwhelmed by the booths and displays (I tend not to go there, but obviously many others do). I suspect you get the idea.

Ultimately for me it is the take away messages about trends in cancer research and cancer care that matter the most personally. And this year the trends appear to be somewhat similar to past years, with perhaps some new wrinkles. What is undeniable is that if immunotherapy is the queen at the ball, then "panomics" (I really like that word) holds the keys to the kingdom. More...

It was the picture (see below) that, to me, said it all: a 96 year old woman -- one of the first patients in the world to receive a brand new cancer drug--, and a large tumor on her neck had melted completely away. But it was the smile on her lips that you couldn't avoid noticing. More...

At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) here in Chicago, something vitally important is happening: there is an increasing recognition of something no one really wanted to talk about in polite company until now. It is the fact that the costs of many of the new treatments being developed are extraordinary.

The headlines about cost and value of cancer care greeted me when I walked into the McCormick Center in Chicago for the opening sessions of the meeting. This is the leading cancer meeting in the world, and what happens here makes news worldwide, significantly impacting the lives of patients with cancer wherever they may be.

Now there is an increasing recognition of the elephant in the room: the costs of these new treatments are extraordinary. No matter how one chooses to slice and dice the arguments, these drugs are expensive with costs per month of $8000 and upwards getting a lot of attention and increasing concerns, especially at this meeting. More...

But the press didn't say much about the fact that not everyone has benefitted from the progress we have made in the prevention, early detection, and improved treatment for colorectal cancer. It is a sad but very real commentary on how we approach health care in this country that African Americans have not benefitted equally from this progress in treating a cancer that for many people can be prevented or effectively treated when found before it spreads to other parts of the body.

As a nation, I believe it is incumbent that we address this glaring health disparity. To do less is unacceptable. More...